List Named Campaigns

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds substantial behavioral detail beyond those annotations, including that each member carries `text_supported`, that the underlying table lacks a provenance column, and that some rows attach threats to campaigns without textual evidence — warning against treating co-membership as correlation evidence.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence earns its place: the first gives purpose and scope, the second distinguishes it from alternatives, the third gives a filtering example, and the last discloses important data-quality caveats. There is no filler or repetition, and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read-only list tool, this description is complete. It explains what the returned members contain, flags data-quality risks, gives a filtering example, and places the tool among it will provide a missing capability that its siblings don't. The annotations and output schema cover the remaining expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds extra meaning for min_actors by giving a concrete use case (finding campaigns with two or more distinct actors) and reinforces the significance of fields like `unsupported` and `cross_nation`. It does not add anything about limit, but the schema covers that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: a roster of NAMED campaigns/operations referenced by the corpus, including their actors, nations, date range, and member threats. It also differentiates the tool from get_campaign_intelligence and get_graph_campaigns, making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly explains when this tool is the right choice: it answers the campaign-lineage question that get_campaign_intelligence cannot answer because that tool requires a known name, and get_graph_campaigns cannot because it only returns engine similarity clusters. It also gives a concrete filter example with min_actors, which further clarifies intended usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.